The IPCC has neither integrity and accountability.
I have read Donna's earlier book and it is packed with corroborating examples.
GCNP58: Your quote about point 11 is not the whole truth. There was an independent enquiry and those are probably the results. However, in Donna's survey, the one she reports in her "Teenager" book, they looked at the 2007 report. They looked at it in 2010 so in those three years no-one had spotted any problems - not the media, the scientists nor any of the science institutions.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Other quotes from the book are instructive: 'Elsewhere, when Takeshita said he considered an assertion in the chapter to be "doubtful" and noted that it conflicted with almost "all of the literature I have ever read," he was told: "Rejected; text simply quotes the study, and good chance the study is correct." Did you catch that? Despite the fact that the study in question wasn't peer-reviewed, the IPCC authors thought there was a "good chance" it was correct – and that was the end of the matter.'
'So if malaria experts aren't writing the section on malaria in the Climate Bible and world-renowned sea level experts aren't writing the section on sea levels, who is writing IPCC reports? '
'Richard Klein, now a Dutch geography professor, is a classic example. In 1992 Klein turned 23, completed a Masters degree, and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, at the tender age of 25, he found himself serving as an IPCC lead author.'
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
About the 2035 Himalayan Glacier disappearance there is a good link below from the Yale Climate Media Forum. It states that the error was pointed out in good time. I seem to recall that TERI (The, formerly Tata, Energy and Resources Institute) got some work on investigating glaciers out of that quote. I expect it is just coincidence that Pachauri runs TERI and has close links to Tata. One of the scientists involved was subsequently employed by TERI too.
Details of the IPCC's "transparency": https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarm...
AR5 is in danger of being dead in the water. It is currently being revised so that it answers questions about the "pause". Obviously, the politicos are starting to get push-back and they can't answer the questions. Presumably, they will not be changing the science so what are they changing, exactly?
Question: "The facts are the hockey stick was never discredited ..." Did we have a Medieval Warm Period or not? Rumour has it thet AR5 might be backtracking to a period prior to MBH98 and MBH99. If MBH99 is correct then there was no temperature blip in the Medieval times - even in one hemisphere?
<
Did you bother the read your own WUWT source? I mean the whole article, complete with update? If you did, it is funny that you missed the IPCC's reply in which they stated they had issued an erratum on March 9, 2012 which explains this typographical error:
'"The green box that is labeled “Savannas, Dry Forests, Woodlands” should be labeled “Tropical Forests”, and the brown box that is labeled “Tropical Forests” should be labeled “Savannas, Dry Forests, Woodlands. "' http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/sar_s...
About Donna Laframboise's book: is it peer-reviewed? Are any of her previous books peer-reviewed? Did she publish errata for the numerous errors and lies she has published in the past?
I think the sad attempts deniers have tried attack Pachauri, from his person life to claims he is only a train engineer, reflect badly, only on deniers and the now rather desperate attempts they are trying to make to cover the fact the have no answer at all for the science.
Any report as large as the IPCC report is bound to have some mistakes and deniers have certainly found a couple, of course being deniers the number and scale of those errors are grossly exaggerated.
I few years ago they discovered a report that Himalaya glacial was not melting as quickly as had at first been reported, in the denier treadmill this quickly went from it had slowed to it had stopped melting to even that it was growing.
You get a similar thing with the hockey stick graph, denier have these catch phrases they keep repeating "it's flawed" "it's disproved" "it's discredited" all are baloney, ask a denier to produce anything to support these claims and the silence is deafening.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11...
The facts are the hockey stick was never discredited and has in fact been followed by a dozen or more works that support it's findings, these are all peer reviewed and solid work, compared to what deniers like to think is evidence, the ramblings a TV weatherman on a blog or a mad English lord who makes puzzles for a living.
Now we have these absurd statements that Arctic sea ice has recovered, when it has done no such thing, 2013 is above the record low of 2012 but still in the same zone as the 4 years before that and all are far below the long term average.
In fact in the last 4 days as deniers have made this claim Arctic sea ice continues to shrink towards it yearly minimum point as it will for perhaps another week or two.
Deniers support this claim by posting an image that shows only 2012 & 2013, when the second image shows the last 6 years and clearly shows no 'recovery' the first image shows 2012 was certainly a stronger, than usual, melt year, as was 2007 (the old record low). As I recall deniers tried to claim ice was recover in 2008 as well, they do seem to have the same recycled stories that continue to fail.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image...
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/...
"Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science."
That statement sums it up. These bully tactics by the green side of saying, "The science is settled," or that, "Climate Change is incontrovertible" are just a lazy method of saying we don't have no stinking proof and we are too lazy to come up with something, so there!
As he states, in the article, that this movement is more like a religion than anything to do with science. This is true. The 'High Priest' Al Gore reminds one more of Jimmy and Tammy Baker than he does of Einstein.
No, the IPCC has very little scientific integrity, if any at all. Their mere existence relies on a myth.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is a non-departmental public body in England and Wales responsible for overseeing the system for handling complaints made against police forces in England and Wales.
A parliamentary inquiry set up in the wake of the death of Ian Tomlinson concluded in January 2013 that, "It has neither the powers nor the resources that it needs to get to the truth when the integrity of the police is in doubt."
Let’s deal with the “Independent Review” that your “source” makes such a fuss over.
Here is “Independent Review” in full:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC%20...
The review was done at the request of of UN Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-moonband the IPCC Chair. Rajendra K. Pachauri because of their desire to improve how the IPCC functioned.
From the report:
“In March 2010, the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was requested by the United Nations Secretary-General and the Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to conduct an independent review of IPCC processes and procedures. The purpose of this review was to help guide the processes and procedures of the IPCC’s fifth report and future assessments of climate change.”
And, rather than finding:
>>“significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCC’s assessment process.”<<
From the report:
“The Review Committee makes recommendations in several key areas.”
From the report:
“Since its founding more than 20 years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can be credited with many important accomplishments. First among these are the periodic assessments of our understanding of the nature, origin, and impact of observed changes in the world’s climate. Also among its significant contributions has been the sustaining of a global focus on climate change. Indeed IPCC has provided the framework for a continued and rather remarkable international conversation on climate research both among scientists and policymakers.
In many ways IPCC, with its massive, far-flung, and decentralized network of scientists along with the governments represented on the Panel, represents a significant social innovation. For these and other contributions, the IPCC was one of the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007."
Why do you suppose your source failed to mention this opinion of the IPCC by the authors of the "Independent Review?"
Goddamnit, Kano. You’re not stupid. Why don’t you try researching original documents yourself rather than waste time fishing for opinions only from people (regardless of their knowledge or integrity) who tell you what you want to hear?
=====
Caliservative --
That would be a decent answer if you would just remove any and all references to - along with any use of any form of the word - "science." It's not your thing - so just leave it alone.
=====
Caliservative --
Appeal to True Authority = Good.
Appeal to False Authority = Bad (just so you won't be confused - this would be you).
The fact that you are uneducated in science is...well...a fact - a fact that is valid and relevant in evaluating the worth of your opinion on matters of science.
=====
edit --
>>Gary F. look how well their independent review works...<<
That is pathetic. No one who was intellectually honest or had a shred of self respect would try to make something sinister out of that.
======
Caliservative ---
'Creation Science' is an oxymoron because the scientific method does not allow the use of supernatural explanations.
Explain how 'Climate Science' is an oxymoron.
>>Baseless assertion, ad hominem, circular reasoning. More evidence of the oxymoronic nature of your position; typical in 'climate science' in general, which is evidence that the entire movement is based on pseudoscience.<<
>>Baseless assertion<<
Asserting that the babbling of a 6-month old is not English is not baseless.
>>ad hominem<<
Referring to the babbling of a 6-month as babbling is not a personal attack on the infant.
>>circular reasoning<<
Concluding that 6-month old infants do not understand E=mc^2 based on observational evidence from a sample of 6-month old infants is not circular reasoning.
Here's an example of "scholarship" from LaFramboise. She makes this claim:
11. Pachauri has long insisted that IPCC reports rely – only and solely – on peer-reviewed source material. The independent review observed that, to the contrary, the IPCC’s 2001 climate assessment cited peer-reviewed material only 36% of the time in one section, only 59% in another section, and only 84% in a third.
Which sounds bad, except 2001 was a year before Pachauri took over, and to hold him accountable for a report that was written and published before he was a chair is laughable. Curry, LaFramboise, and you are delusional.
Some believe that the atmosphere is overloaded with greenhouse gases. In 2006 alone, the world’s carbon dioxide output “approached a staggering 32 billion tons,” says Time magazine. Like the glass panels of a greenhouse, such gases trap earth’s heat, preventing it from escaping into space, thus contributing to global warming. The future? According to the IPCC, continued gas emissions at present levels will result in “many changes in the global climate system,” which will very likely be worse than what has already been experienced. Many now agree that the solution lies in curbing carbon dioxide emissions. However, even if p. 27the emissions of these gases were somehow stabilized, computer models suggest that likely the “warming and [resulting] sea level rise would continue for centuries.”
“Climate change is a global problem,” said one former U.S. president. Would you not agree, then, that a global solution is needed? Jesus Christ pointed to that solution—God’s Kingdom. He instructed his followers to pray: “Let your kingdom come.” (Matthew 6:9, 10) According to Bible prophecy, this heavenly Kingdom is a global government that will soon “crush and put an end to all these kingdoms [present-day governments].” (Daniel p. 292:44) Moreover, it will “bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” (Revelation 11:18) Clearly, those who abuse the earth and squander its resources will be held accountable and will suffer destruction.
Good ol' Judith Curry, trying her best to keep her name in the public eye by attacking everyone but herself. Here is a quote from your link:
"When various parties tried to tell the IPCC this was ludicrous, Pachauri called those people names and disparaged their intelligence. "
Now this is from the Wall Street Journal, with Curry talking about AGW denier and hurricane expert William Gray, who had criticized her work:
"Dr. Curry, in an interview at her Georgia Tech office, said Dr. Gray has 'brain fossilization.' She added: 'Nobody except a few groupies wants to hear what he has to say.'
Ah yes, Judith is a fine one to talk, isn't she?
As if that wasn't enough, she goes on in your link to insult graduate students and international scientists in her point 13--oh, but she isn't either one, so it's ok, isn't it?
I'd be fine with Pachauri stepping down, he's too much of a lightning rod for the conservative right, but it's really hard to take Curry's hypocrisy. She really needs to start doing science again and stop trashing other people--it was obnoxious and uncalled for when she was doing it about Gray, and it still is.
No matter what Judith Curry says, yes, the IPCC has integrity and accountability. The IPCC does not do the science. The IPCC reports what the scientific data shows us. The IPCC works on the international level and with the governments of the world. Here is the flow chart that the IPCC uses to prepare their reports - https://ipcc.ch/organization/organizatio...
Read it, comprehend it and then realize how ridiculous your question actually is.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/
No, an yes. From a scientific standpoint, the IPCC is is driven by governments, and, thus, not possessed of scientific integrity. It is accountable, but only to governments, and thus has accountability to governments, but not to science.
@gary f
If you were a student of science, you would not use appeals to authority, and ad hominem attacks
This is why 'climate science' is an oxymoron.
<...uneducated in science...>
Baseless assertion, ad hominem, circular reasoning. More evidence of the oxymoronic nature of your position; typical in 'climate science' in general, which is evidence that the entire movement is based on pseudoscience.
Integrity? Well that's a matter of opinion and it seems that one's opinion generally falls with one's own belief level regarding AGW.
Accountability? To be accountable you need to held responsible for your actions. Somebody please explain how the IPCC could be held accountable and by whom? Can they be punished? Fined? Impeached? By whom?
_______________________________________...
@gcnp58: You point to an obvious typo (should have read 2007 not 2001) since it's clear that Laframboise did a citizen's audit of AR4. So people who make typos are "delusional"?
Givien that it was denialist Juddith Curry, it is not surprising that the link is full of ad homs.
Note, that unlike many denialists, I actually check a link before commenting on it.
The IPCC Synthesis report is very easy to read in a few hours : http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...
From reading it , and the references , where do you find any lack of integrity & accountability?
Very little integrity and accountability.
War of words over global warming as Nobel laureate resigns in protest
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environ...
yes.
